Bitcoin Forum
May 30, 2024, 03:20:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Re: TX replacement and nLockTime  (Read 508 times)
mmeijeri (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500

Martijn Meijering


View Profile
April 07, 2014, 02:28:07 PM
 #1

I don't understand how you could ever rely on a newer transaction overriding an older one unless unlocked transactions make it into the blockchain in a "passive mode".

ROI is not a verb, the term you're looking for is 'to break even'.
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4186
Merit: 8436



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2014, 02:43:31 PM
 #2

I don't understand how you could ever rely on a newer transaction overriding an older one unless unlocked transactions make it into the blockchain in a "passive mode".
You can't. If replacement was functional in the network you could pay a higher fee and hope that this incentivizes the next miner to do the right thing, but it's not a guarantee. (And I can't see how any amount of 'passive mode' could really help there, except perhaps by making sure the sequence number cranks only in one direction, but someone could still fail to include a newer one).
mmeijeri (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500

Martijn Meijering


View Profile
April 07, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
 #3

And I can't see how any amount of 'passive mode' could really help there, except perhaps by making sure the sequence number cranks only in one direction, but someone could still fail to include a newer one

Yeah, but then at least you'd know about it in advance, before the transaction was locked.

ROI is not a verb, the term you're looking for is 'to break even'.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!